Yes, amazingly, it seems that we all go to the same university (and went to the same high school to boot - well, I knew that about idolatrie, but hellothere was a pleasant surprise)! I was just thinking what the chances for that must be...we could start a socionics club or something, lol.

Yes, amazingly, it seems that we all go to the same university (and went to the same high school to boot - well, I knew that about idolatrie, but hellothere was a pleasant surprise)! I was just thinking what the chances for that must be...we could start a socionics club or something, lol.

Wow. Strange/ really cool. Same thing happend with liveandletlive. Someone on here ended up being from her hs (cant remeber who at the moment). The chances of all that are really slim! Glad you are all here on the forum. You all make really great, insightful posts.

Money will exist in some form or another as capital (that is, the means of production). If no one can own capital, then it must be directed by some central source, which has already been tried. It's impossible for a myriad of reasons, the most glaring of which is that a group of central planners cannot under any circumstances keep track of the millions of transactions that take place every day, much less know what to do about them as well as the people running the businesses would.

But the means of production of which you speak - that is, the capital - is owned by the people. In the 19th century, the "people" of which Marx speaks felt a clear alienation from their work, because, essentially, the capital - the means of production - was owned by a few capitalists; what you had was an oligopoly, a bit like what you have in Russian society today, except with far less human rights.

Originally Posted by idolatrie

Ezra, what you describe is a barter economy, which is not communism. Communism, according to Marx, can only occur after capitalism has flourished and then run its course, so it is definitely not about returning to a pre-capitalist mode of production which is bartering. It is also not about favours - in fact, the principle of self-interest still applies. Because everyone collectively owns everything, it is still in your interests to make your resources grow, but by doing so, it would be for the betterment of everyone, not just yourself. The reason why this collective ownership is necessary is to get rid of the alienation workers feel from what they produce. So the socialisation of the means of production means there is no disconnect between workers, production and consumption.

Yes, but there is no money in communist society. "Barter economy" (nice term by the way) is what exists in the end state of communism. Marx outlines what should happen after communism in The German Ideology.

The world Marx was envisioning would be radically different from ours. So judging it by indicators we use for capitalism obviously does it no favours and just makes it appear ludicrous. Communism does not imply central planning, and Marx explicitly wrote that he did not think Russia would move to communism because, when he was writing, they just were not advanced enough in capitalism for the natural progression to be made.

Exactly. The closest anyone has got (in my opinion) has been Castro, and you could say he was like the vanguard party for Cuba, while the rest of the world becomes communist, if not for the fact that Castro had the Trotskyite party eliminated (and of course Trotsky was the guy who came up with the idea of the vanguard party).

But the means of production of which you speak - that is, the capital - is owned by the people. In the 19th century, the "people" of which Marx speaks felt a clear alienation from their work, because, essentially, the capital - the means of production - was owned by a few capitalists; what you had was an oligopoly, a bit like what you have in Russian society today, except with far less human rights.

It can't actually be owned by the people, because the people have no idea what to do with it.

Wow. Strange/ really cool. Same thing happend with liveandletlive. Someone on here ended up being from her hs (cant remeber who at the moment). The chances of all that are really slim! Glad you are all here on the forum. You all make really great, insightful posts.

Aw, thanks Christy! <3

Originally Posted by Ezra

Yes, but there is no money in communist society. "Barter economy" (nice term by the way) is what exists in the end state of communism. Marx outlines what should happen after communism in The German Ideology.

The absence of money as a medium of exchange does not make the economic activities of a communist society bartering, though from the surface it might look the same (a certain amount of goods exchanged for a certain amount of another good.) The difference is that in a barter economy, I own my potatoes and you own your corn. Conversely, you do not own my potatoes and I do not own your corn. When exchanging in the absence of money, we're determining the relative value of corn to potatoes and giving each the requisite quantities, thus there is a) the valuation of property and b) the exchange of property.

In a communist society, because all means of production and resources are communally owned, when I give you potatoes, I am giving you potatoes that you also own and you're giving me corn that I also own. Therefore the act of giving each other goods we each want cannot be described as an exchange, merely a transference of goods. There is no quid pro quo since there is no private property and no valuation of the goods takes place. It's just: 'Hand those five potatoes will you, Jack, I need to make stew tonight' and 'Sure, Jill. And pass those three cobs of corn will you - I think corn will be lunch.' And since we all communally own everything, you wouldn't hoard, nor would you take more than you needed - imagine taking more than you needed from yourself. It's logically incomprehensible.

The critical step, of course, is to accept communal ownership of property. To some extent, this happens already with certain goods within a family/relationship and there are sociological studies that show some communities do have that attitude toward certain goods, such as a community well. Whether these isolated examples can ever testify to the possibility that at some point in time private property will no longer be the foundation of our (liberal democratic) society, is another question.

It can't actually be owned by the people, because the people have no idea what to do with it.

Why not?

Originally Posted by unefille

The absence of money as a medium of exchange does not make the economic activities of a communist society bartering, though from the surface it might look the same (a certain amount of goods exchanged for a certain amount of another good.) The difference is that in a barter economy, I own my potatoes and you own your corn. Conversely, you do not own my potatoes and I do not own your corn. When exchanging in the absence of money, we're determining the relative value of corn to potatoes and giving each the requisite quantities, thus there is a) the valuation of property and b) the exchange of property.

In a communist society, because all means of production and resources are communally owned, when I give you potatoes, I am giving you potatoes that you also own and you're giving me corn that I also own. Therefore the act of giving each other goods we each want cannot be described as an exchange, merely a transference of goods. There is no quid pro quo since there is no private property and no valuation of the goods takes place. It's just: 'Hand those five potatoes will you, Jack, I need to make stew tonight' and 'Sure, Jill. And pass those three cobs of corn will you - I think corn will be lunch.' And since we all communally own everything, you wouldn't hoard, nor would you take more than you needed - imagine taking more than you needed from yourself. It's logically incomprehensible.

The critical step, of course, is to accept communal ownership of property. To some extent, this happens already with certain goods within a family/relationship and there are sociological studies that show some communities do have that attitude toward certain goods, such as a community well. Whether these isolated examples can ever testify to the possibility that at some point in time private property will no longer be the foundation of our (liberal democratic) society, is another question.

Good point.

The belief I hold is that the larger a population grows, the more impersonal they become, and thus communistic ties are naturally severed. Small scale communism works fine; mass communism does not.

Communism, according to Marx, can only occur after capitalism has flourished and then run its course, so it is definitely not about returning to a pre-capitalist mode of production which is bartering. It is also not about favours - in fact, the principle of self-interest still applies. Because everyone collectively owns everything, it is still in your interests to make your resources grow, but by doing so, it would be for the betterment of everyone, not just yourself. The reason why this collective ownership is necessary is to get rid of the alienation workers feel from what they produce. So the socialisation of the means of production means there is no disconnect between workers, production and consumption.

And there you have it. The failure of such a collectivist economy is precisely that it needs a fundamental change in human nature - the "new communist man". Which is not only impossible but, in my opinion, totally undesirable. That did not stop people like Stalin, Mao and less famous ones like Nyerere from trying.

And there you have it. The failure of such a collectivist economy is precisely that it needs a fundamental change in human nature - the "new communist man". Which is not only impossible but, in my opinion, totally undesirable. That did not stop people like Stalin, Mao and less famous ones like Nyerere from trying.

That's what I said to Gilly, who thought I was just being arrogant/closed-minded.

That's what I said to Gilly, who thought I was just being arrogant/closed-minded.

But in that post you had just said it was impossible, without further elaboration -- right?

Anyway, it makes sense that people who tend to believe that people's behavior, or even their thoughts, are totally "situational" and very influenced by external circumstances, are the same people who would be inclined to try to create the "new communist man".

But in that post you had just said it was impossible, without further elaboration -- right?

Anyway, it makes sense that people who tend to believe that people's behavior, or even their thoughts, are totally "situational" and very influenced by external circumstances, are the same people who would be inclined to try to create the "new communist man".

Well, he had admitted that a lot would have to change for it to work, and I said that any system that requires human nature to mutate beyond recognition was useless.

Everyone would just magically know how to cooperate on a massive scale to do things like build factories, laboratories, create inventions, innovate existing technology, allocate food and shelter?

That just doesn't make sense.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Expat

And there you have it. The failure of such a collectivist economy is precisely that it needs a fundamental change in human nature - the "new communist man". Which is not only impossible but, in my opinion, totally undesirable. That did not stop people like Stalin, Mao and less famous ones like Nyerere from trying.

Well, he had admitted that a lot would have to change for it to work, and I said that any system that requires human nature to mutate beyond recognition was useless.

What is interesting is that it all fits together in Marxist thought, with the idea that you are less an individual than a member of your class. Hence also the logic of "reeducation", and the idea that individuals - even those wielding huge power - are of little importance in history.

What saved the world from communism was precisely that people could not be fundamentally changed; if they could, it would be the worst possible form of slavery - which is precisely one of the points Orwell made in 1984.

What saved the world from communism was precisely that people could not be fundamentally changed; if they could, it would be the worst possible form of slavery - which is precisely one of the points Orwell made in 1984.

One thing that's interesting to note is that the Soviet Union and allies worked night and day to destroy Spain's social revolution; I think it's pretty telling that the USSR put so much effort into thwarting what was one of the biggest experiments in communism in history. Indeed, centralized, top-down socialism (a la USSR) was an obvious failure, but as you might realize from the article I linked to, writing off more organic forms of communism rooted in democracy (which is much closer to what Marx envisioned) is a little harder...

They already do what? What the fuck are you talking about? Speak more clearly, nerd.

No need for name calling, jackass. People control the economy because people are the economy. They make all of their economic decisions in life without necessarily taking a single business course, and for the most part they make these decisions rationally. This is the great assumption of classical economic theory.

"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi

One thing that's interesting to note is that the Soviet Union and allies worked night and day to destroy Spain's social revolution; I think it's pretty telling that the USSR put so much effort into thwarting what was one of the biggest experiments in communism in history. Indeed, centralized, top-down socialism (a la USSR) was an obvious failure, but as you might realize from the article I linked to, writing off more organic forms of communism rooted in democracy (which is much closer to what Marx envisioned) is a little harder...

No need for name calling, jackass. People control the economy because people are the economy. They make all of their economic decisions in life without necessarily taking a single business course, and for the most part they make these decisions rationally. This is the great assumption of classical economic theory.

What? That's not even what I was talking about. Way to spin everything totally out of context.

Everyone would just magically know how to cooperate on a massive scale to do things like build factories, laboratories, create inventions, innovate existing technology, allocate food and shelter?

That just doesn't make sense.

This is one of the problems with the communist model. FDG wrote about this earlier in the thread: the difficulties in putting together a model to predict the necessary composition of production. However the guiding principle is that since everyone owns everything, you would not exploit it beyond what you need to take. There would be no point in building shelter that goes unused, so no one would do that. Innovation would benefit all people, and that would be the incentive to do so. The Classical idea is that with the economic problem 'solved', people could turn to focusing on progress in culture.

But arguing that everyone would need business training to manage the economy is applying a neoclassical principle to the communist model, which just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Expat

And there you have it. The failure of such a collectivist economy is precisely that it needs a fundamental change in human nature - the "new communist man". Which is not only impossible but, in my opinion, totally undesirable. That did not stop people like Stalin, Mao and less famous ones like Nyerere from trying.

I don't think what Stalin and Mao did had much to do with communism as Marx described it. Stalin completely departed from the Leninist tradition in Russia, which was closer to Marx's model, and I think many of his flaws can be laid solely at his feet (mental illness or whatever other reasons there may be included). As you said, in communism, there is not meant to be any one figure who dominates history. Both Stalin and Mao broke that. Any economic model can give rise to totalitarian regimes, and to taint all of communism with the tag of Stalin and Mao does a disservice to the theory.

Originally Posted by Expat

Anyway, it makes sense that people who tend to believe that people's behavior, or even their thoughts, are totally "situational" and very influenced by external circumstances, are the same people who would be inclined to try to create the "new communist man".

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you referring to people who would be more swayed by socialist theory as being ones who are easily influenced? The various traditions in Marxian thought are extremely diverse, and I'm not sure they can really be homogenised like that. Though I may be misunderstanding you there.

Originally Posted by Expat

Orwell was a democratic socialist - a very sincere one.

Orwell was firmly against Soviet communism, which I think is a good argument for making it distinct from theoretical Marxist communism. 1984 and Animal Farm are good critiques of all the ways in which the USSR departed from communism. The 'centralised, top-down' model of communism that USSR practiced is so far from what Marx wrote about that it is ludicrous to hold it up as a good or valid example of communism.

I think the missing piece here is that people do "change" without being "changed" by anything but continued existence, so, again, we really can't know whether or not communism will ever be possible. It's idiotic, arrogant speculation to judge either way.

But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...

Which is odd, because no one remembers him for his Ne/Ti acheivements. He doesn't even get acknowledged for anything by real ENTps like John Maynard Keynes. His remarks on economics are widely regarded as misconceived. The only thing he ever succeeded at was to mobilize tons of people towards a creed, which is more of an beta NF kind of skill.

I think an INFp typing should be looked at.

Originally Posted by Keynes on Das Capital

'My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as﻿ my feeling about the Koran. I know that it is historically important and I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages ... it is inexplicable that it can have this effect. Its dreary, out-of-date, academic controversialising seems so extraordinarily unsuited as material for that purpose'